I decided to get back to the Constitution tonight.
I think I'm watching too much of The West Wing, but then I decided that there
can't possibly be such a thing as watching too much of The West Wing.
I've shot two guns in my entire life, a shotgun and
a .45 - I'm not exactly a gun enthusiast, but I also don't think that people
should be penalized for wanting to uphold their Second Amendment rights. Now,
here comes the tricky part that is going to upset quite a few people...but that
hasn't ever really been a problem for me.
I have a serious problem with uneducated people
owning guns, especially guns that have absolutely no sincere purpose in daily
life. So many people want the right to own guns no matter what. No background
checks, no waiting period, no anything. I completely disagree. In order to own
a gun I believe that the government should regulate gun sales by enforcing a
waiting period, providing background checks and a national gun database registry,
and reducing the sale of assault rifles.
Here is my argument: I believe that we are in a
time with anger and fighting that runs deeper than our founding fathers could
ever imagine. Our would is full of hate, so much so that people will do
whatever it takes to end the life of someone. I understand the argument that if
someone wants to kill, they will do so regardless of their access to guns. I am
also in agreement a majority of the time that, "Guns don't kill people.
People kill people." That being said, I must also ask, What about the
child who, in finding their parent's gun, accidentally kills their sibling or
playmate? Should those parents be allowed to continue to keep weapons in their
house? Keeping a loaded gun around a child (even when you think it's "out
of reach") causes fatalities that are completely preventable. Don't be mad
at the government for wanting to reduce the number of these preventable
fatalities - be angry at the idiots who are being stupid enough to cause them.
For those who say that if someone wants to kill,
they will, I must also ask, but to what extent? One person killing another,
yes. One person killing two others, yes. One person even killing three others,
yes. However, what was the last mass-murder committed using something other
than a gun? I understand bombs, crashing airplanes into buildings, yes. Aurora,
Northern Illinois University, Columbine High School, Sandy Hook, the Safeway in
Arizona, Fort Hood, Binghamton, Westroads Mall, the Carthage Nursing Home, and
Virginia Tech...all of these massacres were carried out using guns.
Some of these shootings are recent, others aren't.
Some you may have never heard of...but that didn't stop them from tearing the
lives of multiple families apart. Below I have broken down the details of the
shootings listed above. These mass shootings are only a small portion of the
deaths that have occurred from guns in our country in the last decade and a
half.
•
Sandy Hook - December 14, 2012 - Shooter: Adam
Lanza - Total number injured & killed: 28, including 20 children under age
8
•
Aurora, Colorado - July 20, 2012 - Shooter: James
Holmes - Total number injured & killed: 70
•
Safeway, Tucson, Arizona - January 8, 2011 -
Shooter: Jared Loughner - Total number injured & killed 19, including Congresswoman
Gabrielle Giffords
•
Fort Hood, Texas - November 5, 2009 - Shooter:
Nidal Malik Hasan - Total number injured & killed: 43
•
Binghamton, NY - April 3, 2009 - Shooter: Jiverly
Wong - Total number injured & killed: 18
•
Carthage Nursing Home, Carthage, NC - March 29,
2009 - Shooter: Robert Stewart - Total number injured & killed: 11
•
Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Illinois -
February 14, 2008 - Shooter: Steven Kazmierczak - Total number injured
& killed: 27
•
Westroads Mall, Omaha, Nebraska - December 5, 2007
- Shooter: Robert Hawkins - Total number injured & killed: 13
•
Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia - April 16,
2007 - Shooter: Seung-Hui Cho - Total number injured & killed: 56
•
Columbine High School, Littleton, Colorado - April
20, 1999 - Shooters: Eric Harris & Dylan Klebold - Total number
injured & killed: 39
According to website Mother Jones, “Since 1982, there have been at least 61 mass
murders carried out with firearms across the country, with the killings
unfolding in 30 states from Massachusetts to Hawaii,” they found...In most
cases, the killers obtained their weapons legally. 15 of the 25 worst mass
shootings in the last 50 years have taken place in the United States.
Gun policies aren't popular.
Politicians tend to stay away from creating laws regarding gun control because
let's be honest, voters like their guns for the most part. According to an
article in the Washington Post: "Since 1990, Gallup has been asking
Americans whether they think gun control laws should be stricter. The answer,
increasingly, is that they don’t. 'The percentage in favor of making the laws
governing the sale of firearms ‘more strict’ fell from 78% in 1990 to 62% in
1995, and 51% in 2007,' reports Gallup.
'In the most recent reading, Gallup in 2010 found 44% in favor of stricter
laws. In fact, in 2009 and again last year, the slight majority said gun laws
should either remain the same or be made less strict.'"
Now, let me be perfectly clear. I'm
perfectly fine with people having guns. I don't think that we should make them
illegal by any means. (We did that with drugs and how well has that worked?) I
do, however, think that there need to be much stricter regulations regarding
the purchasing of every firearm, whether it's from a dealer, a gun show, or a
pawn shop.
Not every law can make everyone
happy. That's just a fact of life. I can tell you right now that
my friends who happily own guns and believe in their Second Amendment
rights are fuming at me right now, and that's perfectly fine, however, that
doesn't make me rethink my point. I believe, like I said before, that the
founding fathers could have absolutely no clue as to the devastating effect
that firearms are causing their country. Do you think that George Washington or
John Hancock honestly could have foreseen the argument over the right to own an
AK-47 or an M-16? Do you think that they could have envisioned a time in their
country where a man or woman could walk into a school and murder innocent
children? If we want our rights to continue to be upheld, we must be more
willing to work with our government. People who wish to continue to utilize
their Second Amendments rights must be more willing to be angry at those people
who are treating guns as if they're a play toy, using them to make poor
decisions, and to create an environment of danger and fear in their
communities. It's those people who are truly the ones affecting our Second
Amendment rights, not the government.
Do you honestly think that the
government would have any objection to citizens owning guns if it weren't for
people abusing their Second Amendment right?
Okay - come on - share your opinions!
Part I
ReplyDeleteI'm so glad you have finally brought this up, I have a special attachment to this issue because I've had to deal with it so much in the past year.
I will start off by saying that, in general, I disagree in general with gun regulation, but there are some things I feel a necessary for the safety of the public. I agree with that a background check is extremely necessary. Because I really see no good or bad thing about a waiting period to obtain a firearm, I will agree with you on that as well. As long as it's a reasonable waiting period, it seems like a reasonable restriction.
I disagree, wholeheartedly, that a national gun registry should be put in place. I already know you are going to think I am crazy for my reasoning. I firmly believe the registry would give the government the power to eventually seize our firearms all together and take away our 2nd Amendment rights all together. Now, most people think I am completely crazy and don't believe our government would ever do that, that our government and politicians support our rights. I'm also not saying that this confiscation would happen immediately, but I do think the decisions we make together affect later generations.
There are two reasons I believe this could become a reality. First, using a gun registry for gun confiscation is not a new idea. It has actually happened multiple times in just the past century. Mussolini used this tactic to take control over Italy and maintained his dictatorship over the country for over a decade. Hitler was another leader who confiscated guns from all Germans before his take over. I don't think I need to explain any farther what happened after he took power. The point here is, that governments have used this method before to take control of a country and force the citizens to do what they want.
My other reason for disagreeing with a national registry is the corruption of our political system today. Politicians no longer represent the people and their desires, they instead try to fulfill their own desires that they feel is "best" for us. Many times, if they believe their constituents won't agree with a policy or law, they try to skirt the system or use a loophole in the law. The most recent example I can use to justify this was the passing of the S.A.F.E. Act in New York. Governor Cuomo utilized a loophole in the law called "Message of Necessity" in order to pass a strict set of gun law in January. What this loophole does essentially is force the state legislature to vote on the bill put in front of them and bypasses the three day time frame that is supposed to be in place before a bill is voted on. This means that the legislature had to vote on a bill that they were not given a chance to read or understand and could only vote with their emotions still high from the Newton incident. Of course the bill was passed. What I find most ironic about the whole situation is that the bill was written so quickly to be passed, they forgot to put exceptions in the bill for police. So when the bill takes effect, all officers carrying a gun with more than 7 bullets are committing felonies just like a citizen.
Part II
ReplyDeleteI also disagree with reducing the sale of assault rifles. The problem with this regulation is that an assault rifle isn't a gun, it's just a loosely defined perception of certain guns. Furthermore, the definition is different for every state, making the regulation even harder to uphold. I think the problem is that people see assault rifles as guns that can hold a large amount of rounds. While this is a true statement, that doesn't make it anymore dangerous than any other gun. Personally, I have a magazine that holds 33 rounds for my handgun. Most assault rifles hold 30. My point is that just because its a bigger gun doesn't mean it can do more damage. Politicians want it banned again because it looks "evil." I will admit that most of the massacres you mentions involved what a majority of people would consider to be an assault rifle. But I assume their choice of weapon for the massacre was either ease of availability or because they played too much Call of Duty. But it certainly wasn't because the gun was more destructive than a handgun or shotgun. Overall, I don't think it should be treated any differently than any other weapon simply because of how it looks.
In regards to your argument about children that find their parent's gun, I will say that state's have laws saying that weapons are supposed to locked up when not in immediate reach of the owner. That being said, I do think that if an accident or fatality occurs, the parent or owner of the gun should should be charged with homicide. If an owner was so negligent to not have control of their firearm or lock it up safely, they should be charged just like it was their finger on the trigger.
I also have to disagree with your argument on the founding fathers. I think they would fully agree with private ownership of these weapons. This goes back to my earlier discussion on a tyrannical government. The amendment was placed in the Constitution to ensure that the federal government would not get out of control and become tyrannical. Based on the fact that our federal government at this time has full auto weapons, tanks, and drones that can be controlled remotely I think it's fair to assume that even if every citizen had an AR, we would still have trouble fighting off a tyrannical government. The founding fathers felt that it was imperative that the people and the government were on an even playing field so there was not an imbalance of power. I think it's fair to say that the balance of power is pretty much lost, regardless of what weapons a citizen owns.
Overall, I do think there does need to be a small amount of regulation to make sure a few select class of individuals cannot get their hands on weapons. But I also don't think those regulations should be government ran since the purpose of the amendment was to keep the government from obtaining too much power. Instead, any few regulations that would be implemented should be ran and monitored by a private sector company.